Survey Results
Institutional Priorities Survey versus Student Satisfaction Inventory
Institutional
Priorities Survey - Comparative Summary
Analysis - February 1999- Institutional
Priorities Survey - Comparative Summary
Analysis - January 2001
- Institutional
Priorities Survey - Comparative Summary
Analysis - January 2002
- Institutional
Priorities Survey - Comparative Summary
Analysis - January 2003
- SSI/IPS Combo Report - 2006
- Institutional Priorities Survey - Comparative Summary Analysis - January 2007
- Institutional
Priorities Survey Summary
- January 2003
- Institutional
Priorities Survey Summary
- February 2004
- Institutional
Priorities Survey Summary -
February 2005
- Fall 2005
Noel-Levitz Surveys On-Line - Student
Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) - Insitutional
Priorities Survey (IPS)
Student Satisfaction Interperative Guide - Insitutional Priorities Interperative Guide - Satisfaction-Priorities Guide
- SSI/IPS Combo Report - 2006
- Institutional Priorities Survey Summary - January 2007
The Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) measures students’ satisfaction with a wide range of college experiences. The Institutional Priorities Survey (IPS) closely parallels the SSI. The IPS asses the priority faculty, staff and administrators believe the institution should place on the same range of student experiences presented in the SSI. By administering both the SSI and the IPS at the same time, Central Georgia Technical College believes it can determine gaps in what students expect and what faculty, staff and administrators believe the focus of the institution should be and how both groups perceive the institution performs in relation to their expectations.
The SSI and the IPS each ask two questions, “How important is it that the institution meet this expectation?” and “What is you level of agreement that the institution is meeting this expectation?” Campus students and personnel rate each item on a scale of 1-7 by the level of importance of the specific expectation as well as their level of agreement that the expectation is being met. Therefore the administration of the respective instruments will result in three different scores for each instrument-importance, agreement and performance gap. Importance score ratings reflect how strongly the aggregate groups (students using the SSI versus faculty, staff and administrators using the IPS) feel about the expectation (the higher the score, the more important it is that the expectation be met for students). Agreement ratings indicate the extent to which the aggregate groups agree that your institution has met the expectation (the higher the score the more in agreement). Performance Gap scores (importance rating minus the agreement rating) reveal how the aggregate groups perceive the expectations are being met overall. A large performance gap score for an item (e.g., 1.5) indicates a perception that the college is not meeting expectations, whereas a small or zero gap score (e.g., .50 or less) indicates a perception that the college is meeting expectations. A negative gap score would indicate the college is exceeding expectations.
CGTC considers an Importance score of 5 or better out of 7 worthy of note and sets a Performance Gap score of 1.00 or less as a goal for individual items and the summary Composite Scales. College performance on the 12 “Global” or Composite Scales is shown overtime in the PowerPoint presentation and in the yearly summary of items. They provide an overview of perceptions of the college’s strengths and areas in need of improvement. Performance gap scores exceeding 1.00 trigger college planners overall and managers in the specific area(s) identified, to review procedures and occurrences of concern and adjust plans to “close the gap.” Subsequent survey periods are monitored annually to note improvement in the targeted dimensionally scale.
Continue to Scales and Explanations